Hi and thanks for visiting the best Ravens forum on the planet. You do not have to be a member to browse the various forums, but in order to post and interact with your purple brethren, you will have to **register**. It only takes a couple of minutes. You can also use your Facebook account to log in....just click on the blue 'FConnect' link at the very top of the page.

Re: Steelers Ink Antonio Brown

Marshall is better than wallace. when he has a qb that can throw even remotely decent hes a top wr by ability. Both have inconsistency with hands. Marshall is stronger and battles across the middle more and as much of a head case as he is, wallace wanting 17/year is just as crazy. Teams could have had him for one like steelfan said. If anybody thought he was worth that they would have paid the price already. 49ers had him in, but that doesnt mean they were willing to part with a 1st either.

Re: Steelers Ink Antonio Brown

Originally Posted by JAB1985

Marshall is better than wallace. when he has a qb that can throw even remotely decent hes a top wr by ability. Both have inconsistency with hands. Marshall is stronger and battles across the middle more and as much of a head case as he is, wallace wanting 17/year is just as crazy. Teams could have had him for one like steelfan said. If anybody thought he was worth that they would have paid the price already. 49ers had him in, but that doesnt mean they were willing to part with a 1st either.

The 49ers weren't disinterested in him because the didn't want to give up a first round pick. They lost interest when they found out he wanted Larry Fitzgerald money, which - as much as I like Wallace - he's not worth. There are three guys worth Larry Fitzgerald money. Larry Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson and Andre Johnson...and with Andre's injuries the last two years, not even he may be worth that anymore.

But Marshall better than Wallace? Hahano. Marshall's extremely good, and yes I get that his time in Miami was stunted due to having terrible quarterbacks. They're two different types of receivers. But Wallace is younger and does virtually everything better than Wallace right now...both simple and advanced metrics prove that out. The simple you can look up on your own here and here. Here's the advanced:
- Wallace's catch rate has increased from 54% to 64% in the past three years (with the 54% being his rookie year) while Marshall's has decreased from 66% to 57%.
- Wallace has a higher +/- rate (estimate of # passes caught vs. an avg receiver would catch in his situation) over the last two years.
- You claim both have issues with hands, but Wallace's drop rate is lower at 4.9% vs. Marshall's drop rate of 6.1%.
- I certainly don't dispute Marshall is physically stronger. But battles over the middle more? Last year, Wallace had 12.0% of his passes thrown to him in plays going to "short middle" while Marshall had 11.8% to that zone. And only 27% of passes to Wallace were "deep" or "bomb" length vs. 31% for Marshall.
- By FO DVOA metrics, Wallace's DVOA the last three seasons have all been over 30% all three years, while Marshall's highest over that span was 7.4%, which was this year...his last year with Cutler his DVOA was 2.6%. In that same span, Wallace has 1,059 DYAR vs. Marshall's 534 DYAR.

Re: Steelers Ink Antonio Brown

Originally Posted by psuasskicker

Wallace is better and younger than Marshall and doesn't come with the baggage. Teams don't pay attention to whether or not a guy hits UFA the year after a trade because they will have the guy locked into an extension before they pull the trigger on a trade. Otherwise they wouldn't trade for him.

If the Steelers get less than a first rounder for him, I'd be thrilled. That's if they trade him. Which, honestly, they don't have much incentive to do. They're better keeping him for $2.45MM or whatever this year, then franchising and trading him next year (assuming Wallace doesn't have the leverage to force their hand by saying they won't franchise him for him to sign his deal).

Re: Steelers Ink Antonio Brown

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

Torrey Smith caught 55.6 % in his rookie year (correct me if I'm wrong). If Torrey can turn out anything like what Wallace has today, that is going to be huge for us.
And I agree, I don't get the hate for Wallace in the general public, even Steeler fans seem to under appreciate him from what I've heard.

Standard pre contract skill degradation from fanbase that wants him to sign under market deal. Happens all the time.

They'll be in a rough spot, but I'm pretty sure they'll find a way to franchise him if they really want to trade him. He represents WAY too much value not to. They could get nothing less than a second for him by doing that, probably a first.

We pretty much have to hope that the cap crushes the Steelers next year. That team is going to be exceptionally good this year. My own belief is that right now I think they're the most likely team to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl. That'll be a longer blog post later.

Originally Posted by leachisabeast

Torrey Smith caught 55.6 % in his rookie year (correct me if I'm wrong). If Torrey can turn out anything like what Wallace has today, that is going to be huge for us.

And I agree, I don't get the hate for Wallace in the general public, even Steeler fans seem to under appreciate him from what I've heard.

FO has Smith's catch rate at 54% ... 50 catches on 96 attempts. That includes all plays other than ones negated by penalties. Smith's rookie season actually looks pretty close to Wallace's...

Not saying we should automatically think Smith will go for 1,200 yards and 10 TDs this year, but I do think that's a possibility, and I certainly think it's reasonable to think his trajectory will be similar to Wallace's. We all know how both teams are built very similarly. Flacco's actually fairly similar to Roethlisberger (except he's not as good after 4 years as Ben was), and like Wallace had Hines Ward - tough, physical possession receiver - in front of him, Smith has the same with Boldin.

Re: Steelers Ink Antonio Brown

Some points and agreements and disagreements

1. The Steelers are not signing wallace, they cant afford to and that means they certianlly cant afford the 9 mil cap hit that comes with the franchise tag

2. They wont get a 1st for him because that team will have to also pay him a big contract. Had they been able to get a 1st they would have already as anyone can sign him to an offer sheet. They will likely get a 2nd or more likely a 3rd as teams know the steelers cant afford to keep him. it would be one thing if teams knew the steelers could sign him if they wanted to.

3. The players who get 1st rd picks traded for them are ones who are starts AND under a fair contract and ones that dont need to be signed to a big contract by the team trading for them

4. Brown will not fail well vs the other teams #1CB and will see many double teams, wallace made him a great player since everyone geared their D to the Run and Wallace

5. The steelers are old and will not be in the super bowl and probably not in the playoffs so whoever said they will be in the super bowl, i dont know what you are thinking...

6. If T. Smith, Doss, L. Williams and possibly streeter or thompson develop they Ravens wont be spending big $$$ on a WR. They will sign a cheap vet to be the 3 or 4. They will spend big $$$$ on a T and if they have more room possibly a S or if ozzie is in love with Dwyane Bowe maybe him and then address the S or LT in the draft. I see bowe as a long shot esp if Streeter/Williams/Doss develop. Plus we have 2 pass catching TEs

7. The steelers have Mendenhall as a UFA next year as well and they probably cant pay him due to the cap either.

Finally, They do this to them selves by keep restructuring deals and that causes them to be in cap trouble every year and have to cut players every year. Next year they will be making plenty of cuts...

Re: Steelers Ink Antonio Brown

2. They wont get a 1st for him because that team will have to also pay him a big contract. Had they been able to get a 1st they would have already as anyone can sign him to an offer sheet. ...

3. The players who get 1st rd picks traded for them are ones who are starts AND under a fair contract and ones that dont need to be signed to a big contract by the team trading for them

First off, I'm pretty sure they signed him to the max tender which requires more than just a first round pick to get him signed to an offer sheet. Second, other teams - such as the Niners - were interested in signing him to an offer sheet, until they found out he's trying to get paid like Fitzgerald, which he's not worth. Giving up a first and third to overpay for a guy ... maybe if the Redskins were involved, but they aren't, so no one should expect to see this happen.

And I'm not really sure what you're talking about with your #3 point above. That's simply not close to true...in fact, it's the opposite. Ricky Williams was obtained by the Dolphins for multiple picks including two first rounders prior to the final year of his deal. Jason Peters got traded to Philly for a first round pick while franchised. Deion Branch was traded to Seattle for a first round pick prior to the last year of his deal. Roy Williams was traded for three picks including a first in the middle of the final season of his deal. Richard Seymour was traded to the Raiders for a first going into the final year of his deal. In all of these cases (though admittedly I'm not positive about Ricky and couldn't find it), the players immediately signed long term deals with the teams to which they were traded. The exception of course being Seymour, who didn't particularly like going from one of the winningest NFL teams over the past decade to one of the losingest.

Pretty much the ONLY time that players are traded and a first round pick is involved is when the player is going to be up for a new contract within a year. No one ever trades a player for a first round pick when they're in the middle of a solid deal. That would be insanely counter-productive for a team...why would you trade a guy who's obviously giving you exceptional production in the middle of a deal where they're not being paid exceptional money? Can you come up with even one example in the 2000s where a player is less than two-thirds of the way into their deal and was traded for a first round pick?

Re: Steelers Ink Antonio Brown

Originally Posted by psuasskicker

The 49ers weren't disinterested in him because the didn't want to give up a first round pick. They lost interest when they found out he wanted Larry Fitzgerald money, which - as much as I like Wallace - he's not worth. There are three guys worth Larry Fitzgerald money. Larry Fitzgerald, Calvin Johnson and Andre Johnson...and with Andre's injuries the last two years, not even he may be worth that anymore.

But Marshall better than Wallace? Hahano. Marshall's extremely good, and yes I get that his time in Miami was stunted due to having terrible quarterbacks. They're two different types of receivers. But Wallace is younger and does virtually everything better than Wallace right now...both simple and advanced metrics prove that out. The simple you can look up on your own here and here. Here's the advanced:
- Wallace's catch rate has increased from 54% to 64% in the past three years (with the 54% being his rookie year) while Marshall's has decreased from 66% to 57%.
- Wallace has a higher +/- rate (estimate of # passes caught vs. an avg receiver would catch in his situation) over the last two years.
- You claim both have issues with hands, but Wallace's drop rate is lower at 4.9% vs. Marshall's drop rate of 6.1%.
- I certainly don't dispute Marshall is physically stronger. But battles over the middle more? Last year, Wallace had 12.0% of his passes thrown to him in plays going to "short middle" while Marshall had 11.8% to that zone. And only 27% of passes to Wallace were "deep" or "bomb" length vs. 31% for Marshall.
- By FO DVOA metrics, Wallace's DVOA the last three seasons have all been over 30% all three years, while Marshall's highest over that span was 7.4%, which was this year...his last year with Cutler his DVOA was 2.6%. In that same span, Wallace has 1,059 DYAR vs. Marshall's 534 DYAR.

No, Marshall isn't a better receiver than Wallace.

- C -

even marshalls bad years with a horrible QB he still had more receptions and more yards than wallace on a team that basically just ran it or threw it to him as the only option, typically regardless if he was in tight double coverage. Wallace was on a pass happy team and still didnt surpass him statistically. sorry but your basic metrics says exactly the opposite of your final statement or theyre at least super comparable with deciding factors being scheme and QB play, which would give the edge to marshall not wallace in that case.

analytics and football dont mix, it can be interesting, but its not proof of anything imo. the game is more than that (and i believe the writers of that site even say so in their disclaimer). two completely different systems one conducive to the passing game with a top 5-10 QB and one not with a 3rd string QB and the receiver in the worst one has more yards and more receptions and only a slightly worse catch rate (57.4 to 60.5), both of which arent that great when considering there are 36 WRs with better than Wallace alone. sorry but to me you can see the things that dont show up in stats, even though his are higher in that regard as well. watching both in games last year they both had balls hit their hands and not be caught. difference being marshalls were usually behind or over his head and was jumping and out stretched just to get a hand on it, while Wallace had some hit him right in stride and not bring them in. I will say he improved in that regard last year but he still had moments. i will give you that he is younger and has less baggage (besides his crazy contract demands, which we can at least agree on who the top 3 worthy of that are) and therefore still capable of progressing but the only thing he does better, considering systems and whos throwing them the ball, is the 9 route. hes faster and where marshalls can stretch the field its usually due to sheilding defenders than out right running past them. Steeler fans admitting hes not as good as others say is simply the same thing were arguing about. Its not hating or trying to devalue them to sign them cheaper (which has no effect on anything). Theres always going to be a split between those two sides, analytics and "eyes" guys, except the times they match up, which is usually only the elite players and the worst players. Im not saying the niners definitely wouldnt have given up a 1st, but just because you bring in an RFA doesnt mean youre looking to sign them to a tender and give up that first. youre able to talk to them and then trade for less if the current team is willing which was a much more likely scenario than giving up a first and a mega contract, which has happened... never (where somebody actually signed an RFA or even Franchise tender, correct me if im wrong)? He got a first round tender, btw not a franchise tag so it is only a first rounder required.

Re: Steelers Ink Antonio Brown

Originally Posted by JAB1985

even marshalls bad years with a horrible QB he still had more receptions and more yards than wallace on a team that basically just ran it or threw it to him as the only option, typically regardless if he was in tight double coverage. Wallace was on a pass happy team and still didnt surpass him statistically.

And I stopped reading here because you clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

First off, of course Marshall had more receptions and yards than Wallace. He had 143 passes thrown his way last year. That's a whopping 30 more than Wallace has had thrown to him. Over the previous two years, Marshall has 2,228 yards to Wallace's 2,450 yards. But Marshall has had 289 passes thrown to him vs. Wallace having 211. This is obviously partly due to Wallace having Roethlisberger vs. Marshall having Henne/Moore/Thigpen throwing the ball, but still, when one receiver over a two year stretch has 37% more passes thrown to him, it should be obvious that he would have better base stats.

Oh, except that he doesn't.

But more to the point, Steelers are a pass-happy team? The Steelers were the #19 team in passing attempts last year. They were exactly middle-of-the-pack average in the NFL (#17) in their pass:run ratio.

Now, you can claim "analytics and football don't mix" and "its (it's) not proof of anything" all you want. And while I would agree that stats aren't the be-all-end-all in this game, the reality is that they are both instructional and often directional. And they are most certainly more meaningful than, say, claiming "Pittsburgh is a pass-happy team," as statistics allow us to easily refute such a claim. Pittsburgh appears to be a pass-happy team because they pass more than they run (which in today's NFL, everybody who doesn't have Tebow or Yates throwing the ball does that) and because their passing game is exceptionally well executed. But as I have shown several times on this board, just because something appears one way, reality is not that way, and statistics show us that.

Every single stat except the overall # receptions (and, for this past season, yards) - advanced or simple - show Wallace is the better receiver. The advanced stats compensate for the fact that Wallace has a better QB throwing him the ball than Marshall. Now, you can watch them on the field and just like to have the bigger, stronger guy if you want. And Wallace may not be preferable vs. Marshall for teams that don't need a burner but do need a physical WR.

But none of that is an argument for why Marshall is supposedly better. Feel free to tout the "He's better because he had more yards on a worse passing team" all you want. It's nonsensical and you've done nothing to actually attempt to prove why Marshall is supposedly better than Wallace.